Flores v. United States Attorney General, et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
GENERAL and FEDERAL BUREAU
Plaintiff Eric Flores filed a complaint (Filing No. 1)
and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing No.
3) on October 16, 2015.
The Court now conducts an initial review
of the complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Court is required to review in forma pauperis
complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or
any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim,
that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual
allegations to “nudge their claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70
(2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).
Here, Flores filed a 96-page “Petition to Challenge the
Constitutionality of the First Amendment.”
CM/ECF p. 1.)
(Filing No. 1 at
Flores filed a nearly-identical complaint in this
Court on April 8, 2015 (Flores v. United States Attorney General,
4:15CV03038-LES-PRSE), which the Court dismissed with prejudice
As he did in his prior case, Flores named the United
States Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
as the respondents.
He seeks to certify a class of Mexican-
American citizens who are in imminent danger.
pertain to the actions of “an organized group of executive
employees of the federal government.”
He alleged this group of
federal employees “set up their own court of common law”
specifically established to deprive him of his constitutional
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 10.)
He also alleged, among other
things, that this group of federal employees directed geneticcode altering satellite transmissions from outer space at him,
his family members, and other Mexican-Americans.
None of the
events Flores described in his complaint occurred in Nebraska.
The Court notes Flores has made identical or similar
filings in numerous other district courts across the country.
See, e.g., Flores v. United States Attorney General, No. 3:15-cv00217-RCJ, 2015 WL 3949090 (D. NV. June 29, 2015); Flores v.
United States Attorney General, No. CV 15-32-H-DLC-JTJ, 2015 WL
3650038 (D. MT June 11, 2015); Flores v. United States Attorney
General, Nos. 15-5026-JLV, 15-5028-JLV, 2015 WL 3644836 (W.D. SD.
June 10, 2015); Flores v. United States Attorney General, No. 1511359, 2015 WL 3407926 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2015).
The Court will once again dismiss Flores’s complaint
because his allegations are entirely baseless, fanciful,
fantastic, or delusional.
See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32-34 (1992) (court may dismiss complaint of plaintiff proceeding
in forma pauperis as frivolous, and disregard clearly baseless,
fanciful, fantastic, or delusional factual allegations).
addition, as a pro se litigant, Flores may not represent the
interests of other parties.
Litschewski v. Dooley, No. 11-4105-
RAL, 2012 WL 3023249, at *1 n. 1 (D.S.D. July 24, 2012), aff’d,
502 Fed. Appx. 630 (8th Cir. 2013).
Finally, the Court must
dismiss Flores’s complaint because venue in this district is not
proper, as none of the facts alleged in the complaint occurred in
the District of Nebraska.
A separate order will be entered in
accordance with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 22nd day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
* This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no
responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion
of the Court.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?